[Dime] Dime Errata [Technical Errata Reported] RFC 6733 (6171)

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dime WG,

Looking at the errata 6171,  RFC Errata Report » RFC Editor (rfc-editor.org)<https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=6171>

I think that this errata should either be verified, presuming that the intent of the WG was that it is the relay or proxy agent that performs the actual check.  Or, if it is reasonable for this to be interpreted differently, then I would propose “Held for Document Update” instead.

Please reply with any comments by the 16th Feb.

Regards,
Rob

RFC 6733<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6733>, "Diameter Base Protocol", October 2012

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 7075<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7075>, RFC 8553<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8553>
Source of RFC<https://www.rfc-editor.org/source/>: dime (ops)
________________________________

Errata ID: 6171<https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6171>
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Valentin Micic
Date Reported: 2020-05-13

Section 6.1.3 says:

A relay or proxy agent MUST check for forwarding loops when receiving

requests.  A loop is detected if the server finds its own identity in

a Route-Record AVP.  When such an event occurs, the agent MUST answer

with the Result-Code AVP set to DIAMETER_LOOP_DETECTED.

It should say:

A relay or proxy agent MUST check for forwarding loops when receiving

requests. A loop is detected if a relay or proxy agent finds its own

identity in a Route-Record AVP.  When such an event occurs, the agent

MUST answer with the Result-Code AVP set to DIAMETER_LOOP_DETECTED.

Notes:

The term "server" used to identify party which is to detect its own identity as a part of Route-Record AVP is semantically too close to the term Diameter Server. If "relay or proxy agent MUST check", the question is what would be the consequence of such action if the (Diameter) "server" is to do the "detecting"?